What would the world look like today if human beings didn't

Animals consider sex pleasurable, the orgasm you feel as you bust a nut is probably the oldest mechanism of your reptilian brain.

>>2650298
It would look Christian.

>>2650298
>tfw she left porn
my dick is unpleased

>>2650302
This, dogs aren't thinking "holy shit i need to procreate" they're thinking "dam this bitch smells good as fuck im gonna stick my dick in her" which is essentially the same motivation we have.

>>2650298
Animals have no concept of procreation, dummy. They also do it because it feels good

>>2650298
Probably a lot more productive, like after ive had a wank

>>2650421
They just last 5 seconds

>>2650298
How the hell can you not understand the simple fact that in order for a male animal to ejaculate and for the cervix of the female animal to receive sperm, intercourse must be pleasureable. Its absolutely fundamental to procreation. Please think before making threads.

>>2650298
>but treated it simply as a means of procreation, like most other animals

lol idiot

>>2650429
so do you

>>2650605
touche

>>2650415
you better give me a fucking name

>>2650303
Read the Song of Songs. True Christianity (not protestantism) has no qualms about romantic love or light eroticism.

>>2650415
>>2650298
You got a code for that one?

>>2650302
There is no reptilian brain senpai. This is pseudoscience.

I think the real trip here is that if we didn't find it pleasurable we wouldn't do it. It's like a butterfly effect, if you untangle sexual pleasure from human history you're just stroking your mental dick.

This is like /his/ fanfiction.

Does raise the question: what is pleasure?

>>2650442
>absolutely fundamental
meh.
I don't doubt that all mammals have orgasms, but procreation happens in a lot of species that probably do not.

>>2650298
sauce??? i need to fap

File: IMG_1264.png (376KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1024x676px

>Autists can't address the question itself and instead reject it's premise

Guess the humanities are just a bit too complicated for some

Sauce???

Chances are animals find sex "pleasurable" in that the reward centers of their brain encourage them to do it, which is the same function that find sex pleasurable serves in humans.

If we truly didn't find sex pleasurable, we wouldn't reproduce.

>>2651502
The premise is inconsistent.

>>2651470
>Does raise the question: what is pleasure?

Spinoza defined it in similar terms to happiness. He considered happiness anything that expanded your capability to act, whereas pleasure was that except focused only on smaller parts of your body.

>>2651419
>>2651466
>>2651485
>>2651741
After some legwork I found it
SNIS-563
Takachiho Suzu

File: 1491866705862.jpg (13KB, 350x296px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 350x296px

>>2650298

I realize that you're just a pol9k fuckwad who's baiting for a reason to whine about "muh degeneracy", and "muh hedonism" and about that girl you like who won't date you, but I'll humor you anyway.

Everything a person consciously decides to do is motivated by one of two desires: the desire to continue living or the desire to trigger the pleasure center of the brain and get a hit of that sweet, sweet dopamine, seratonin etc. We do things that aren't pleasurable, like hard manual labor, or fighting, because we associate those actions with survival; hard work leads to money which can be used for food and resources, etc. We do things that aren't necessary for survival but trigger our pleasure center, such as sex and playing games. We tend to avoid doing things that are neither necessary for survival nor pleasurable. Sex is already inherently unnecessary for survival, so if it was not pleasurable then there would be no biological impetus to do it.

TL;DR: No. If sex was not pleasurable it would not lead to the girl you like ignoring Chad and saving her virginity for your boring, personalityless ass. Lose some weight and gain some hobbies, faggot.

File: 1433959730344.jpg (145KB, 720x764px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 720x764px

>>2650605

>>2650298
Even ringworms have serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine receptors. Animals feel very similar about sex as we do

>>2651907
*roundworms

>>2651876
Way to make some extreme baseless assumptions. This is a nice board.

>>2651941

Fuck off back to whichever containment board you came from.

File: Stop.jpg (59KB, 412x591px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 412x591px

>>2651502
Because the question is nonsense.

It's like asking 'why does a car need wheels in order to move?' or 'why can't 1+1=3 instead of 2?' or 'why does a pig have eyes?' It's complete waste of time to even think about the question because the answer is so obvious and fundamental to the concept.

What's more, how the hell can anyone answer 'what the world would look like today'. Wtf does that even mean? It's so damn broad, it could mean anything.

Finally, this is a history/humanities board and the only legitimate way this question could be posed, would be in a biological evolutionary context. But even /sci/ would tell you to fuck off because its ultimately a stupid question.

>>2652031
Be nice. No need for hostilities.

>>2651470
>evolutionarily older, less developed parts of your brain don't exist
Did you fall for the literalism meme?

>>2652636
>nonsense
>the kinds of questions around which the humanities are founded
You're an idiot.

>>2651857
Damn that shit sexy.